[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][fusion_text]

CHALLENGE B

Over the last decades, democratic nation states have repeatedly proven to be utterly incapable of either socio-technically design, legally oversee, or set adequate socio-technical requirements for due process lawful access systems and processes.

Provided that Challenge A can be met, is it feasible to substantially reconcile meaningful privacy for all, with effective due process cyber-investigation through a provider-managed process certified and overseen by a citizen-accountable and competent international body? If so, which paradigms could provide sufficiently extreme safeguards?

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][fusion_tabs design=”classic” layout=”horizontal” justified=”yes” backgroundcolor=”” inactivecolor=”” bordercolor=”” class=”” id=””][fusion_tab title=”Private Debate” icon=””][bbp-single-topic id=474][/fusion_tab][fusion_tab title=”Public Debate” icon=””][modulo_commenti][/fusion_tab][/fusion_tabs][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

Start typing and press Enter to search